bjbest

Centaur raises some interesting issues and makes some reasonable arguments. My thoughts follow his comments. Cenataur:Ok, so now we are poking about someone else's list of caches that we have to evaluate to see if we like that person's taste in caches or hunting. Seems like just another layer one step removed from simply reading a caches' description and the logs of people on that page. This information would ideally be available for those who would like to peruse it. The "X people have listed this cache as their favorite" statistic would be the starting point on the cache description page. You don't need to delve farther if you don't want to. In my opinion, a cache's description often does not give you any clue as to its quality whatsoever, either intentionally or unintentionally. I've also got some concerns about putting unwavering faith in logs--they're later in this message. Centaur:What I have a hard time with is rating systems that imply competition. I can see classification along the lines of the chicago pages: Best for Kids, Quick in and out, etc. Thats typing a cache. What I cant see is trying to codify quality or hunt any farther then the logs. Doing so could and would lead to competition (a top few percent, and by default the "losers") and I dont believe competition has a place in geocaching. In an organized short term cache event, yes, in day-to-day geocaching, no. You certainly have the right to believe that competition doesn't belong in geocaching, but I think you're also ignoring the fact that competition is inherently built, at least in a small way, into the way the fabric of geocaching.com. After every log we post there is our number of caches found. I've found 46, you've found 38, etc. Now, you may say that you could care less about your number of finds, but I would guess the bulk of geocachers are at least somewhat interested in that statistic and how it compares to others' numbers. In this sense, the number of finds makes geocaching competitive. The number of finds (and number of posts in these forums, so dutifully noted at the bottom of every one of our posts) also promotes competition of a social nature in the geocaching.com community. Oversimplifying, you can say that higher your number of finds and number of posts, the higher your rank in the pecking order here (and on the regional websites, I would imagine). I believe the favorites list would promote healthy, capitalist-style competition, encouraging hiders to hide better caches. Now that of course doesn't mean that caches that don't have any favorites votes won't be hunted; the sport has grown far too big and has too many enthusiastic players for that. Centaur:Any cache should be just as valued as any other, be it psyical quality or the hunt. Really? Would you say that some Tupperware box tossed in a local two-acre tract of nondescript forest has the same value as a multi-stage that features clever but fair puzzles, breathtaking views, and creative/unique hiding locations or containers? I simply can't agree. I feel there exist many caches that are, for lack of a better word, boring. Walk through the woods for half a mile, find the box, walk back out. I've done that cache at least 20 times and don't really want to do it again. Now, I'm not saying that those caches aren't valuable (seems to me they are, in fact, the bread-and-butter of the business) and I'm also not saying there aren't people (and it may in fact be the majority, I don't really know) who do enjoy going on exactly that type of hunt. I do understand that people go caching for a wide variety of reasons (just to get outside, to be introduced to an area they've never visited, they're competing in the "numbers race", the thrill and amazement of simply finding this little box hidden in the woods that so (comparatively) few people know about, etc., etc., etc.) My personal opinion is that I need something that is interesting, challenging, very scenic, or ideally all three. Centaur: True, some are geo-junk, but the Finding is suposed to be the object yes? True, some hunts are more fun than others, but again, you can tell all that from the logs, no? Just my 2 cents. Well, the object is whatever a particular geocacher wants it to be. Simply finding the box is no longer the interesting part of geocaching for me. I've expressed my goals just above. As for being able to discern cache quality in the logs, I think that approach is a little difficult. Rarely, I think, do you get honest comments on the logs, particularly about so-so caches. "This cache was boring." I may think so, but I don't really want to hurt the hider's feelings and I do understand the amount of work it takes to hide even the simplest of caches, and I appreciate that. This sort of handling-with-gloves approach is fine, I think; it keeps people positive about the sport, about hiding another one, about the geocachers as human beings, etc. People are often willing to say things like "excellent cache" in the logs, but again, such recommendations require scrutiny. I think there's also a large group of cachers out there who tend to write brief logs which may not really express their true feelings--good or bad (I'm assigning myself to this category). Other caches may request crypticness in the logs, so it can hard to log your feelings adequately without giving away too much info. And lastly, there are a lot of boring, trite logs out there: "Good cache. Thanks." I've read so many logs like this that they've become meaningless (and, admittedly, have written my share, too), and it's clear the only reason they were written was simply to log the cache as found on the website. Ok, so, to sum up, I think the favorites list would be a positive way to reward hiders for a job well done and to encourage traffic at good caches. In this way, this laissez-faire approach should encourage future hiders to hide good caches as well. I don't think a little competition (and I believe it would be just that, a little competition) would hurt at all. Centaur, I'm not trying to attack you, although it might seem that way since I did just pick through your entire post. I definitely understand your viewpoints but simply disagree with some of them.

quote:Originally posted by Centaur: Playing devils advocate here... Define: "outstanding" please. In my view of the way this would work, "outstanding" would be completely defined by the person marking a cache as a favorite. Very egalitarian. By looking at a user's complete list of favorite caches, and comparing it to your own mental list of caches you like and caches you didn't, you should be able to evaluate that user's favorites, and determine if the ones that they list that you haven't hunted might be of interest to you.

quote:Originally posted by skydiver: I would naturally expect that with the 'X people have this on their favorites list.' there would also be a link to who those people are, and from there a link to what else they each have on their lists. If you then bookmarked a particular persons list that you happen to agree with ... you've got exactly what you're looking for. Yes, ideally, you would be able to look at it both ways: by username (the profile concept), or by cache (the "X people like this cache" concept). Markwell is right that such numbers will vary by region, and that a really good cache here in Wisconsin might only get 5 votes, while a really good cache in an area where they have a lot of geocachers and fancy things like mountains (e.g., California, Utah, Oregon, Washington, etc.) might get 20 votes. Also, the Chicago favorites page is quite well done. We do have something in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Geocaching Association's Cache of the Month (http://www.wi-geocaching.com/cache_month.shtml ), which is voted on by the proletariat. But, I'm not entirely convinced by the regional argument. All numerical facets of geocaching are regional. Someone with 300 finds living in North Dakota to me is much more impressive than someone with 300 finds who lives in a cache-rich state such as California (only 30 caches in ND according to Buxley, 3,464 in California, ranking last and first by state's total caches, respectively; CA is 8th in the cache density statistic, while ND is 50th). The same argument could be applied to a Swede who was 300 finds (853 caches in Sweden) compared to an American (24,283 caches). Essentially, I think people would quickly learn how many favorite votes constituted a good cache for their region. Also, a regional solution leaves those regions that do not have an active web community outside of geocaching.com out in the cold. Furthermore, a regional solution doesn't really address those cachers who hunt caches off of their "home turf"--on vacations, business trips, etc., and consider a particular cache they found on one of these excursions as a favorite. I, personally, used to live in St. Louis but now live near Milwaukee. Some of my favorite caches are ones I hunted in St. Louis. What do I do with such information? I *could* go to the St. Louis Area Geocachers' Association web site (http://www.geostl.com/ ), but I'm no longer active there, and they don't currently have a page like the Chicago association does. A geocaching.com-wide solution would eliminate this problem. One specific thing I like about Chicago's list is that it's broken into very useful categories--good for kids, good for beginners, definitely don't miss, etc. I think it would be probably too difficult for geocaching.com to do this--at least off the bat. Obviously, people will have to vote for whatever they feel are their favorite caches based on their own criteria. This may lead, somewhat, to the phenomenon asatruar is concerned about. But if there was the capability to look at the users' other favorites, I imagine you could form a pretty reasonably opinion of the other users' ratings.

quote:Originally posted by Markwell:Take a look at my profile page. Copy what I did. While I like Markwell's idea, and it's very well executed in his profile, it doesn't really accomplish what I have in mind. There's no easy way to determine how many people consider a particular cache as one of their favorites. I don't really want to slog through 50 profiles of everyone who's logged a cache to figure out that only 2 people like it enough to list it as their favorite. The issues here are ubiquity and ease of use--making it like the Watch List, in my opinion, is the only way to achieve the benefits I listed in the first post. However, all that being said, that doesn't mean I'm not going to do exactly what Markwell suggests. I doubt the Favorites List will ever become a reality.

This issue has been discussed on these forums in various topics for at least a year now, but no action has been taken. So, I feel the need to make one final (for me, anyway) impassioned plea to get some sort of favorites list on the site. Here's how it works: It's just like the watch list. You earn the right to designate one cache as a "favorite" for every 10 (or 15 or 20 or whatever) caches you find. When seekers look at a cache's detail page, it will say "X account(s) have listed this cache as one of their favorites" (much like the page says "X account(s) watching this cache currently). I would imagine this would be pretty easy to implement, just modifying some of the Watch List code, but I am not a programmer so I can't say with certainty. Why is this necessary? Because hiders should be rewarded for placing a particularly good cache (and this would be accomplished by the aura of well-being created when someone lists your cache as one of their favorites), and seekers would like to know which caches their peers consider particularly good, and in all likelihood hunt for them (this also rewards the hider, because a cache that has several people marking it as a favorite will probably be visited more often, generating more logs). Geocaching.com has no quantifiable way to rate the quality of caches, and for many obvious reasons. Reading the logs can give a general concept of the quality, but too often the logs are filled with generalizations and platitudes. (e.g., "Good cache," and that's the entire log.) A favorites list would give probably the best quantifiable measurement we could ask for regarding a cache's quality. Thanks for listening.

I just wanted to thank everyone who posted their unique caches. There are some really neat ideas out there. Also, regarding those who say they prefer more standard caches, I certainly understand that point of view. I definitely don't want to see *all* caches become these specialized types. What I guess I would like to see in the caches I hunt is evidence that some thought went into placing it (this echoes a sentiment expressed earlier). This could be in the form of work done by a hider beforehand desinging a unique or challenging cache, in the form of an excellent hiding location / vista near the cache, or ideally both. But those who said we need variety in our cache hunting are exactly right. As promised, I hid two more caches that fall under innovative/interesting, I think. The first is Puzzle Box (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=41134 ). I won't describe it here; read the cache page. I'm particularly proud of this one, in terms of uniqueness and interestingness. If you are interested in learning more about the puzzle box, want to know what the "secret" is, or would like to see some more pictures (I took a bunch before I sealed it), please contact me. The other is Try Angulation (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=41136 ). One guess as to what this one involves. There were three interesting sculptures in the park where Puzzle Box is hidden, so it was easy to make this one up. I think it's an interesting idea that isn't *too* taxing, challenge-wise; it uses some basic orienteering type skills that everyone should at least be able to fumble their way through, in my opinion; and it's easy to set up if you have distinctive landmarks like these sculptures. Again, thanks for all the comments.

I felt I was getting too wonky, so I thought I'd post my own experiences in a separate message. I've hidden two caches recently that try to be innovative in at least some small way. The first is Barking (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=39212 ), which, you might be able to guess, is hidden about 30 feet up a pine tree, strapped to the branches. I'm sure I'm not the first one to do this, but it's interesting, fairly unique, and (comparatively) easy to do in a pine tree. The other is Tricks (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=39386 ), a four-stage puzzle multi-cache. However, these puzzles aren't the typical "calculate-the-coordinates" puzzles that I've seen previously. Go to http://pages.prodigy.net/bjbest/geocaching/tricks.doc if you'd like to see the puzzles (Microsoft Word format), and feel free to e-mail me with the answer if you'd like (most people, I've found, don't solve it correctly the first time around). Furthermore, the first three cache containers are hidden in more interesting locations than normal. One is about seven feet up in a dead tree (you have to build a small step out of scattered logs to get up there). For another, you have to walk on a (large) fallen tree, across a stream, to the cache which is hidden on the fallen tree, about 15 feet off the ground. The third is "hidden" in plain view, hung from a tree branch about 15 feet off the ground, requiring a long stick to retrieve. I've received pretty positive comments about both of these caches, and I think it goes to show that seekers do appreciate the extra thought and effort involved in an interesting/unusual cache. There are two others I'd like to submit for your consideration, both from the St. Louis area: CMPL Box (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=1810 ) is a letterbox/geocache combo disguised as a book and hidden among the stacks at a local library. Very different and interesting. Pirates' Treasure (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=2606 ) is very clever. Using some math and UTM coordinates, you find four separate locations. Plotting the correct route between the points on your GPS, an X is formed on your map screen. The X marks the spot of the final cache. I hope to get one more cache hidden soon around here; I'll post the details here when I do.

I've been involved with geocaching for oh about a year and a half now, but I've only found 45 according to my profile (I had to check), and of those, I would say only a handful of those have been unique or memorable. Ultimately, many of the cache hunts I've been on (mainly in MO, IL, and WI) amount to a brief walk in the woods followed by a hunt for the cache in or under a nearby log, stump, tree, rock, or bush. Now, I'm certainly not criticizing those who place caches like these (as I have placed a few of these myself), and I also understand that there are numerous reasons why people choose to go geocaching in the first place (a chance to get outside, introduction to a new park/other public location, the reward of a unique location/vista, the numbers race, etc., etc., etc.). However, for me, the hobby got boring. I wonder how many people are out there have a story similar to mine (although odds are they aren't reading these forums). This is also not to say there aren't good, interesting caches around. Here in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Geocaching Association has a Cache of the Month each month, as voted on by the proletariat (http://www.wi-geocaching.com/cache_month.shtml). The St. Louis Area Geocachers Association reviews select good caches on its site (http://www.geostl.com/#FeaturedCaches). A way of marking a favorite cache, as has been discussed for at least a year now on these forums, would also be beneficial in terms of rewarding both hiders (in terms of recognition) and seekers (in terms of an excellent cache) of interesting, novel, or otherwise strong caches. My experiences may also be based on the general topography of where I've searched. Most of the public land around here is rolling hills and lots of deciduous forest. If you're going to hunt or hide caches around here, that's pretty much where you're going to have to go. But that doesn't mean all of the caches need to be, essentially, the same. All of the preceding notwithstanding, I am interested in hearing individuals describe innovative or inventive caches they have found or placed. By exchanging ideas and building on them, perhaps we can encourage the placement of more innovative caches. [This message was edited by bjbest on October 22, 2002 at 06:00 PM.]

Heh... Man vs. Nature and Forest Park were already updated, so it looks like there *is* a way to transfer control. :-)

Thanks to all who replied. Here's who signed up for what: Oak Knoll: K-TEAM Man vs. Nature: Island-Dave Forest Park Pentacache/Quadracache: St. Louis Geocachers Association (c/o GLNash) Thank you so much! New cache owners: I'll add your names to the cache description pages today. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way me to transfer control of the page on geocaching.com, so either let me know if you want additional info posted on the cache page, or you could simply relist the cache under your own name and I can archive mine. Feel free to contact me with any issues at all at bjbest at prodigy dot net. Thanks again!

Hello, STL area cachers, As I imagine you are aware by now, neither Big Jimmy nor I are actively geocaching in the St. Louis area anymore. I now live near Milwaukee, and Big Jimmy simply has too many other demands on his time. That being said, rather than simply let our caches rot in St. Louis from now till eternity, we're looking for one or more persons to take over ownership of our caches. The caches would become completely yours, legally, morally, ethically, physically, psychedelically yours. The three caches and note about each follow: Oak Knoll cache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=1278): Just a basic cache that's been around for more than a year. Still visited quite frequently. Not too much maintenance with this one. Man vs. Nature (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=1840): This was originally a 3-stage cache but unfortunately stage 2 has been missing for quite some time. We've rigged it so you can go directly from stage 1 to stage 3, but personally I'd like to see stage 2 replaced. Of course, that would be completely up to the new owner. I'd be happy to provide the little card we used to indicate the coordinates for stage 3 that we put in the stage 2 container. Forest Park Pentacache/Quadracache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=2615): This was originally a five-stage cache, but stage 1 was missing. So now we've changed it to a four-stage cache, starting with the original stage 2. Again, I'd like to see stage 1 replaced, but that'd be up to the owner. Also again, I could provide the coordinate card that we put in stage 1. So, those three are up for grabs. Thankfully, the St. Louis Arch Virtual Cache can take care of itself. If you'd like to claim one of these or ask me more questions about one, e-mail at bjbest at prodigy dot net. Thanks!

Here is a brief description of the haiku from Louis Turco in The New Book of Forms, which describes many poetic forms: quote:[The haiku is] a poem based on image, emotive utterance, and certain other characteristics as well: spareness, condensation, spontaneity and ellipsis, plus a seasonal element--they are about spring, summer, fall, or winter. Ideally, the haiku, though complete in itself, is open-ended in that its statment reverberates beyond the poem into overtone. Now who will write the first geocaching sestina, pantoum, sonnet, or villanelle?

Here is a brief description of the haiku from Louis Turco in The New Book of Forms, which describes many poetic forms: quote:[The haiku is] a poem based on image, emotive utterance, and certain other characteristics as well: spareness, condensation, spontaneity and ellipsis, plus a seasonal element--they are about spring, summer, fall, or winter. Ideally, the haiku, though complete in itself, is open-ended in that its statment reverberates beyond the poem into overtone. Now who will write the first geocaching sestina, pantoum, sonnet, or villanelle?

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: I composed a haiku above that has 3-5-5 syllables before I was informed about the 5-7-5 "requirement". But my 3-5-5 haiku felt good and conveyed a spiritual feeling notwithstanding the "rule". And I thought that Japanese is pretty different than English. The 5-7-5 might better fit the cadence of the Japanese language... In fact, English translators of Japanese haiku feel almost no bound to the 5-7-5 structure. I have seen some haiku translated as only one longish line. Alan is exactly right that a 5-7-5 structure works a lot better in Japanese, in terms of rhythm and also rhyme. It is my understanding that Japanese is also a syllabic language, so listeners would easily recognize the 5-7-5 pattern. In English, we don't count normally count syllables; we rely more heavily on accents, and in fact most formal poetry in English is accentual-syllabic, which means both the number of accents and the number of syllables matter. The most common accentual-syllabic line is iambic pentameter, as demonstrated by this famous line (which, alas, I may slightly be misquoting) by W.B. Yeats: "How can we tell the dancer from the dance?" (10 syllables, accents on CAN, TELL, DANC-, FROM, and DANCE). Perhaps the best notion of a haiku in English can be derived from Beat poet Jack Kerouac, who suggests a "Western haiku" form that should "simply say a lot in three short lines in any Western language." Some haiku from Basho, a Japanese master (translated to 5-7-5 standards): I would lie down drunk on a bed of stone covered with soft pinks blooming. * * * Will it soon be spring? They lay the groundwork for it, the plum tree and the moon. (<--note 6 syll.) * * * No one walks this road on which I travel, on which autumn darkness falls. * * * 2 Western haiku by Kerouac: Missing a kick at the icebox door It closed anyway. * * * Those birds sitting out there on the fence-- They're all going to die. * * * And finally, a geocache-ku to close: Whom shall I thank for this grass, this serendipitous box of trinkets? Optional reading assignment: Trip Trap: Haiku on the Road from SF to NY, by Kerouac, Albert Saijo, and Lew Welch (Revised ed., Grey Fox Press, San Francisco, 1998).

In the cache I place an eight-track and remember brittle, dying leaves * * * It seems that geocaches would be the perfect place to write renga, which are a two-person collaboration of an extended haiku. The way a renga works is that one person writes a haiku with 5/7/5 syllables, and then the collaborator finishes the poem with two lines of 7/7 syllables that somehow comment on the original haiku. An example would be: The laxatives found in this cache are nothing like Spring cherry blossoms Why did the hint not suggest What a bear does in the woods? (oregone & bjbest) Anyone up for leaving haiku in the logs, to made into renga by a subsequent finder and then posted in the online logs? Remember: traditional haiku typically mention a particular season (or a transition between seasons), or use a symbol of such (cherry blossoms, falling leaves, etc.). I knew that graduate degree in poetry would pay off sometime! :-)